Surviving Under One Roof

For years, Brewster Center Domestic Violence Services and Tucson Centers for Women and Children ran shelters a few miles from each other in the southern Arizona city. Then last spring, the two domestic-abuse charities did something that more and more nonprofit groups are considering in this perilous economy — they merged into one organization.

The move was not without significant challenges, but the group’s leaders say it has enabled them to provide services more efficiently and avoid competition for grant dollars. That has provided a buffer against the recession.

“When I talk to funders, I’m able to say that we’re the only provider of these services and we don’t have duplication,” says Sarah A. Jones, chief executive of the new charity, Emerge Center Against Domestic Abuse. “I can feel very confident in stating the needs.”

Streamlined Enrollment

Leaders and supporters of the combined organization say that before the merger, the two groups offered slightly different services. Women who came into a charity’s shelter, for example, would sometimes have to re-enroll with a second organization depending on their needs. Now, the enrollment process avoids any such hurdles, says Ms. Jones.

And donors, many of whom had wondered for years why the two charities operated independently, say the move has established some much-needed clarity about who is advocating against domestic abuse in Tucson.

“The fact that there is only one organization out there, and they’re speaking with one voice on the issue of domestic violence, is a good thing for our community,” says Steve Alley, president of the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona, in Tucson, whose group was one of several foundations that paid for a study in 2005 to examine the benefits of a merger. “There’s no doubt as to where the voice resides now.”

The financial benefits have not been as clear.

Combining operations cost about $200,000. The biggest expenses: a new database and marketing efforts to establish the charity’s new identity.

Emerge’s budget is currently about $4.8-million, roughly the same as what the two groups’ combined budgets would have been.

To be sure, the merger has allowed Emerge Center Against Domestic Abuse to eliminate some costs. Several positions were combined at the time of the merger, although no one was laid off because Brewster had roughly a dozen vacancies at the time.

And Emerge has lured some new donors, including five foundations that had not supported either group in the past. But others that gave to Brewster or Tucson Centers have so far withheld support from the new charity.

Even so, Lori Bryant, who served as board chair of Tucson Centers and now holds the same position at Emerge, says the new organization has a stronger chance of surviving the recession than did either group on its own.

“One of us probably wouldn’t have made it in this new economy,” says Ms. Bryant, who is chief executive of the pharmacy ScriptSave.

Input From Donors

When the organizations first talked seriously about merging, in 2006, Ms. Bryant didn’t support the idea.

She was aware of the expenses and challenges that stem from mergers because of her work in the corporate world, and she wasn’t sure that the two charities could resolve their differences over which of their executive directors would lead the new organization.

So instead of merging, the charities decided to create a central phone number for victims of domestic violence, and to find other ways to work together.

Then in 2007 Brewster’s executive director stepped down. The time seemed right to renew discussions.

The charities’ two boards formed a committee with Ms. Jones to shepherd the merger process. Among their most important tasks: keeping donors informed.

They polled donors and others in Tucson to learn how they felt about a possible merger.

After the charities’ leaders decided to move forward, they sent letters and e-mail messages to update donors on their progress.

Preston McMurry, a businessman in Phoenix who had committed $500,000 to Tucson Centers shortly before the merger, says he was “ecstatic” to learn that the two groups would be combining their operations.

“Involvement really is key,” he says. “I don’t mean involvement in making decisions, but involvement in understanding what the benefits are going to be to both organizations and to the community.”

Staff members were also kept up to date on the merger. None lost their jobs, although one charity’s director of human resources chose to leave at the time of the merger rather than accept an assistant position with the new group.

Board members were encouraged to stay on, and most did.

But even with the board committee’s efforts, trustees and supporters of Emerge say the merger might have fallen apart if the two groups had not been experiencing what one donor calls “an alignment of stars”: namely, the vacancies at Brewster and the fact that Ms. Jones had joined Tucson Centers only a year before.

Because Ms. Jones was so new to Tucson Centers, supporters say, she was not as invested in preserving the charity’s identity. Instead, she was committed to creating a third organization that could combine the best aspects of each group.

Emerge’s leaders also say they tried to make sure the merger would be precisely that — rather than an acquisition — by creating a new name for the group.

“That has allowed Sarah to move forward with a new, clean slate,” says Ms. Bryant.

Combining ‘Cultures’

Ms. Jones warns that a merger is complicated and expensive, and that financial reasons alone don’t justify such a step.

“The cost savings are there, but it can’t just be about the cost savings,” she says. “The services have to benefit, too.”

Chief among the challenges has been combining the groups’ two “cultures” — and giving all staff members a stake in the new organization.

Ms. Jones says she has tried to find a third way to offer services, one that is somewhere between Tucson Centers’ systematic, yet sometimes rigid, approach to assisting women and Brewster’s more informal way.

Ms. Jones says she “cannot emphasize enough” the cultural clashes that can arise from a merger.

“Two people can look at the same color, and one can call it teal and the other says aqua,” says Ms. Jones. “You have to be willing to develop a common language.”

And despite her efforts, many of the charities’ employees have decided not to stick around.

Ms. Jones avoided layoffs by not filling vacancies when employees left, and by moving staff members from duplicative positions to vacant ones. But, while no employees have been forced to leave, about 30 percent of the two groups’ staff members have chosen to do so in the 10 months since.

“The expectations definitely jumped in terms of how people performed and worked with each other,” she says. “Many people did decide the new organization’s culture wasn’t right.”

Ms. Jones says she believes the merger was a good move for her charity, but that it may not make sense for many organizations, particularly in this recession.

She says: “You really need to have the time and resources.”